STATE  OF  NEW-YORK 


IVo.  55. 


IN  ASSEMBLY, 

January  23,  1838. 


REPORT 

Of  the  committee  on  colleges,  academies  and  common 
schools,  on  the  memorial  of  \Vm.  G.  Griffin  and 
others.  0 

Mr.  Barnard,  from  the  committee  on  colleges,  academies  and  com- 
mon schools,  to  whom  was  referred  the  memorial  of  William  G.  Griffin 
and  others,  asking  the  Legislature  to  enact  a  law  to  prohibit  the  prac- 
tice of  praying,  singing,  reading  the  Bible,  and  other  religious  exercises, 
in  such  schools,  academies  and  seminaries  of  education,  as  receive  aid 
from  the  public  treasury, 

REPORTS: 

That  the  committee  have  given  to  this  memorial  the  most  serious  and 
deliberate  consideration.  They  have  been  deeply  impressed  with  the 
importance  of  some  at  least  of  the  questions  raised  by  the  petit ionere, 
and  involved,  directly  or  by  implication,  in  the  object  they  are  pursuing, 
and  the  indispensable  necessity,  if  possible,  of  ha\'ing  those  questions 
settled,  and  settled  right,  in  the  public  mind.  In  recommending  that 
the  prayer  of  the  memorialists  be  not  granted,  the  committee  would  not 
deem  their  duty  faithfully  done,  without  an  effort  to  shew  that  their 
conclusions  in  the  matter  are  sound  and  just;  it  is  believed  that  this  can 
be  shewn  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  house,  and,  it  is  hoped,  to  the  satis- 
faction of  the  petitioners  and  of  the  country. 

The  substance  of  the  complaint  in  this  memorial  is,  that  religious  ex- 
ercises are  tolerated  in  those  public  schools  which  participate  in  the  pub- 
lic bounty;  and  this  practice  they  reganl  as  a  violation  of  the  law  of 

f  Assem.  No.  55.  |  1 


.  /i^  i  2  [Assembly 

equality  and  the  rights  of  conscience,  as  aiding  to  propagate  and  enforce 
peculiar  religious  opinions  at  the  public  expense,  and  leading  to,  if 
not  actually  forming,  a  union  of  church  and  state. 

In  order  to  understand  the  force  and  effect  of  this  complaint,  it  will 
be  necessary  to  look  for  a  moment  at  our  system  of  public  instruction, 
to  consider  what  our  schools  are,  how  constituted  and  supported,  and 
why  they  are  sustained  and  regulated  as  they  are. 

It  happens,  unfortunately,  that  experience  does  not  shew  that  the 
mass  of  any  people  are  disposed  to  keep  up  and  support  a  suffi  ie  it  and 
effective  system  of  instruction  for  themselves  by  voluntary  contributions, 
and  it  becomes  necessary,  therefore,  for  the  sake  of  self-preservation, 
that  the  community  should  make  provision  for  the  support  of  educa- 
tion by  law.  This  necessity  was  early  felt  in  this  State,  and  it  has 
long  been,  and  is  now,  and  always  must  be,  the  settled  and  steady  po- 
licy of  the  State  to  furnish  aid  in  support  of  public  instruction. 

• 

To  speak  of  our  common  school  system  only.  A  large  sum  is  dis- 
tributed annually  from  the  treasury  in  payment  of  the  wT.ges  of  teach- 
ers, and  a  sum  equal  to  that  which  is  thus  furnished,  and  which  is  the  in- 
come of  a  large  fund  devoted  to  this  purpose,  is  raised  by  the  compul- 
sory process  of  taxation,  and  applied  to  the  same  object.  Each  district, 
complying  with  certain  prescri&ed  conditions,  receives  a  share  of  these 
public  moneys.  The  district  taxes  itself,  if  the  majority  in  it  so  please, 
to  provide  the  proper  house  and  accommodations  for  the  school.  It 
contracts,  through  its  trustees,  with  a  qualified  instructor,  and  provides 
for  the  payment  of  an}"  deficiency  in  the  amount  of  public  moneys  to 
pay  the  w^ages  of  the  master,  by  a  rate  bill  against  those  who  furnish 
children  to  be  instructed. 

In  this  plan,  it  will  be  seen,  that  while  no  person  liable  to  taxation 
is  allowed  to  escape  the  duty  of  contribution  to  the  support  of  popular 
education,  no  individual  is  compelled  by  any  law  to  educate  his  chil- 
dren at  all,  much  less  to  send  them  to  the  public  schools.  If  he  choose  to 
violate  the  solemn  obligation  which  his  position  as  a  citizen,  a  contrac- 
ter  with  the  community,  imposes  on  him  to  fit  his  offspring  by  a  proper 
course  of  educational  discipline  for  the  part  they  are  to  act  in  the  bu- 
siness of  the  common  government,  he  is  at  liberty  to  do  so.  Espe- 
cially is  he  left  at  perfect  liberty,  if  he  will  have  them  educated  at  all, 
to  do  so  in  any  manner  he  thinks  fit,  and  under  any  masters  whom  he 
may  see  proper  to  employ.  In  regard  to  the  support  of  the  public 
schools,  he  stands  precisely  in  the  condition  of  any  tax-paying  citizen, 


No.  55. 1 


3 


Avho  mav  h^.vc  no  children  to  send  to  those  schools.  He  has  the  same 
interest  in  the  school  land,  and  like  them  he  contributes  to  the  amount 
raised  by  taxation  according  to  liis  ability.  Further  than  this  the  law 
does  not  oblige  him  to  go.  He  is  taxed  lor  the  support  of  an  indispen- 
sable public  institution,  and,  if  he  have  children  to  be  educated,  this 
institution  is  open  to  him  as  to  all  others,  and  he  is  free  to  avail  him- 
self of  its  direct  advantages  or  not,  according  to  his  pleasure. 

Now  it  is  to  these  schools,  as  we  are  to  suppose,  that  the  children  of  the 
petitioners  are  accustomed  to  resort,  and  in  some  cases,  it  is  fair  to  pre- 
sume, that  it  is  found  exceedingly  inconvenient,  perhaps  impossible,  for 
these  parents  to  furnish  their  children  with  the  means  ol"  instruction  any 
where  else.  They  are,  therefore,  obliged  to  resort  to  these  schools,  or 
take  the  alternative  of  keeping  their  children  in  utter  ignorance j  and  it 
is,  under  these  circumstances,  that  they  come  before  the  Legislature 
with  the  complaint,  that,  on  resorting  to  these  schools,  they  find  there 
a  practice  introduced — that  of  indulging  in  devotional  exercises — which 
they  deem  highly  offensive  and  objectionable.  The  grounds  of  objec- 
tion to  this  pmctice,  as  far  as  we  can  g-ather  them  from  the  memorial, 
are  two: 

1.  That  the  christian  religion  is  thus  supported  or  aided  at  the  public 
expense. 

2.  That  the  rights  of  equality  and  the  rights  of  conscience  are  thereby 
invaded,  inasmuch  as  the  unguarded  minds  of  their  children  are  thus  ex- 
posed to  be  contaminated. 

In  regard  to  the  first  of  these  positions,  the  committee  would  only 
say,  that  it  is  a  mere  error  in  fact.  It  is  simply  untrue.  These  teach- 
ers are  paid  for  teaching,  and  not  for  praying.  No  part  of  their  wages 
is  for  this  service,  or  any  other  religious  exercise.  And  this  must  be 
evident  enough  from  the  fact,  that  the  wages  of  teachers  are  not  in  the 
least  affected  by  the  consideration  whether  they  pray  or  do  not  pray. 

In  regard  to  the  other  ground  of  objection  presented  by  the  petition- 
ers, we  remark:  Whenever  a  number  of  persons  associate  together  in 
public  assemblage  for  any  specific  object,  it  is  usual  and  perfectly  com- 
petent for  them  to  agree  on  the  forms  of  proceeding,  and  the  terras  on 
which  the  common  object  shall  be  prosecuted.  This  determination  of 
course  belongs  to  the  majority;  and  it  belongs  essentially  to  the  power  of 
the  majority  to  insist  on  any  conventional  forms  of  proceedings  while  the 
body  is  together,  not  inconsistent  with  the  common  object.  As  for  ex- 
ample, if  it  be  a  company  of  Friends,  or  they  are  in  the  majority,  they 


4 


[Assembly 


may  agree  to  sit  with  their  hats  on;  if  not,  they  may  agree  to  sit  with 
them  off.  If  the  majority  are  Shakers,  they  may  dance;  if  Jews,  or 
Christians,  they  may  pray.  And  in  all  these  cases  it  is  the  duty  of  the 
minority  to  submit.  The  only  question  for  them  is,  whether  the  form 
or  ceremony  insisted  on  is  in  itself  decent  and  becoming,  and  not  in 
hostility  to  the  main  piu'pose  of  the  association . 

Now  it  is  on  this  principle  that  your  committee  suppose  the  practice 
objected  to  by  the  petitioners  is  adopted.  The  practice  is  not  prescri- 
bed by  any  State  authority.  It  is  a  matter  wholly  referred  to  the  deci- 
sion of  the  towns  and  districts.  A  majority  of  the  parents  sending 
children  to  a  public  school,  acting  for  their  children,  as  they  have  a  right 
to  do,  may  rightfully  agree  and  direct  that  the  proper  business  ot  the 
school  shall  be  opened  or  closed,  or  both,  daily  with  religious  exercises. 
Each  parent  has  a  right  to  pray  himself  and  to  teach  his  child  to  pray; 
and  if  one  has  this  right,  so  have  all,  or  as  many  as  are  of  that  way  of 
thinking;  and  as  each  may  practice  acts  of  devotion  individually,  when- 
ever they  associate  Ihey  may  practice  the  like  acts  of  devotion  in  a  so- 
cial w^ay;  and  they  may  require  the  same  thing  of  their  children,  whe- 
ther individually  or  in  a  social  assemblage.  The  practice  is  innocent 
and  decent,  and  we  know  of  no  principle  on  which  a  minority,  volun- 
tarily associating  with  them  in  pursuit  of  an  object  in  which  they  are  all 
agreed,  can  properly  dictate  to  the  majority  the  conventional  terms  on 
which  the  body  shall  proceed 

But  the  petitioners  ask  for  the  passage  of  a  law  to  prohibit  the  prac- 
tice complained  of.  They  ask  for  a  law  to  prevent  the  majority  in  a 
school  district  from  ruling  in  a  matter  which  is  in  itself  innocent,  and 
is  of  necessity  purely  conventional.  They  ask  for  a  law  to  prevent  a 
majority,  asssociated  and  meeting  for  the  purpose  of  instruction,  from 
indulging  in  social  prayer  and  reading  the  bible  as  a  devotional  exercise. 
The  argument  for  this  application  is,  that  the  children  of  the  minority 
are  exposed  to  have  their  minds  tainted  and  corrupted  by  these  religious 
acts. 

It  is  undoubtedly  true  that  no  person,  and  no  association  of  persons, 
are  at  liberty  to  indulge  in  any  acts  or  practice,  in  the  face  of  the  commu- 
nity, w^hich,  by  their  necessary  operation,  are  calculated  to  corrupt  and 
debauch  the  youthful  or  the  unwary;  to  incite  to  licentiousness  or  to 
crime.  It  is  in  this  principle  that  the  law  will  not  tolerate  the  publica- 
tion of  obscene  books  and  prints.  As  no  man  has  himself  a  right  to  rob 
or  steal,  so  no  man  has  a  right  to  incite  another  person  to  rob  or  steal; 
and  as  no  man  has  himself  a  right  to  trample  on  the  common  law  of 


No.  66.] 


5 


public  decency,  so  no  man  has  a  right  to  stimulate  the  passTons  oruttietrr 
to  the  commission  of  the  like  offence. 

If  then  it  were  true  that  the  devotional  practice  complained  of  by  the 
petitioners  tended  of  necessity  to  the  contamination  of  the  minds  and 
morals  of  their  children,  it  ought  undoubtedly  to  be  arrested  by  legal  in- 
terposition. Such  is  not,  however,  the  opinion  of  your  committee. — 
It  is  not  enough  to  make  out  the  case,  that  the  petitioners  difler  in 
opinion  with  those  who  resort  to  this  practice,  in  regard  to  the  charac- 
ter and  pretensions  of  the  religion  which  the  latter  profess.  The  peti- 
tioners have  an  undoubted  right  to  pronounce  that  religion  to  be  a  mere 
superstition,  and  its  whole  story  a  collection  of  legends  and  absurdities, 
as  they  seem  to  do  in  this  petition;  but  this  we  apprehend  is  not  enough 
to  make  out  a  case  demanding  its  suppression  by  legal  authority.  They 
must  go  farther,  and  show  that  this  religion,  by  its  necessary  operation, 
is  pernicious  in  its  effect  on  mind  and  morals,  tending  to  set  men  free 
from  all  moral  restraint,  and  turn  them  loose  with  excited  and  unbridled 
passion  on  each  other  and  on  society.  When  this  is  proved,  then  un- 
doubtedly ought  the  practice  of  "  praying,  singing,  and  reading  the  Bi- 
ble," to  be  prohibited  in  schools.  And  of  course  tlie  prohibition  must 
not  stop  there.  If  these  Christian  practices  are  interdicted  by  law  in 
schools,  because  they  contaminate  and  corrupt  the  youth  who  there  wit- 
ness them,  they  must  be  interdicted  elsewhere  and  every  where  within 
the  State,  for  the  same  reason.  If  the  public  reading  of  the  Bible,  whe- 
ther in  schools  or  elsewhere,  has  a  necessary  tendency  to  vitiate  public 
sentiment,  to  incite  to  universal  laciviousness,  or  in  any  way  to  weaken 
and  finally  destroy  all  sense  of  moral  obligation,  then  the  public  reading 
of  the  Bible  should  be  prohibited  by  law,  not  in  one  place,  but  in  all 
places;  and  not  only  so,  but  it  would  be  the  duty  of  the  community  to 
put  an  utter  end  also  to  the  printing  and  circulation  of  such  a  book. 

The  committee  cannot  suppose  that  these  petitioners  themselves  are 
ready  to  carry  out  the  work  of  prohibition  and  exclusion  to  the  extent 
here  indicated;  and  for  ourselves,  we  should  be  quite  unwilling  to  begin 
such  an  experiment  in  any  quarter — at  least,  upon  any  evidence  we  yet 
have  of  the  pernicious  and  dangeruos  character  of  the  book  or  the  reli- 
gion of  which  the  petitioners  complain. 

But  the  prayer  of  these  memorialists  presents  for  consideration  ano- 
ther subject  of  no  little  moment.  They  ask  that  the  reading  of  the  Bi- 
ble in  schools  should  be  prohibited;  and  this  goes  of  course  to  its  utter 
exclusion — if  it  may  not  be  read,  it  cannot  be  introduced  and  used  there 
for  any  valuable  purpose.    Now^  your  committee  think  that  there  are 


6  [Assembly 

Very  weighty  reasons  why  the  use  of  this  book  should  be  retained  in 
our  public  schools,  and  why  it  may  be  without  the  least  danger  of  of- 
fending any  one's  conscience,  or  injuring  any  one's  rights.  We  have 
seen  on  what  ground  it  is  that  the  majority  in  a  public  school  have  a 
right  to  read  the  Bible  as  an  act  of  devotion.  We  now  mean  to  insist 
that  its  use  as  a  text  or  class-book,  is,  in  our  judgment,  indispensable  to 
a  good  system  of  popular  instruction. 

Popular  education  is  a  thing  very  closely  connected  with  the  healthy 
existence  of  civil  society,  especially  in  the  form  which  such  society  has 
assumed  with  us.  Having  been  at  liberty  to  choose  a  government  for 
ourselves,  we  have  resorted  to  the  republican  mode,  the  first  principle  of 
which  is,  that  the  people  are  the  source  of  all  political  power.  We  have 
all  assented  to  this  form  of  government,  each  individual  for  himself, 
and  each  is  therefore  under  contract  with  all  for  its  preservation.  The 
obligations  which  the  adoption  of  any  form  of  government  imposes  on 
the  citizens,  do  not  rest  alone  in  constitution  and  laws.  Some  of  the 
most  essential  are  implied  in  the  very  nature  of  the  government  adopted. 
Such  are  those  which  have  regard  to  personal  character  and  conduct,  and 
their  influence,  for  good  or  evil,  on  the  stability  and  permanence 
of  the  political  forms  in  use.  It  is  universally  conceded  that  popular 
intelligence  and  popular  virtue  are  indispensable  to  the  existence  and 
continuance  of  such  a  government  as  ours;  and  if  so,  then  as  the  cha- 
racter of  the  public  will  be  what  the  mass  of  individual  character  is,  it  is 
the  duty  of  every  individual  to  be  virtuous,  and  to  possess  a  competent 
degree  of  intelligence.  Every  man  who  has  any  voice  or  influence  in 
public  affairs,  is  bound  to  inform  himself,  and  to  act  honestly;  for  if  any 
one  is  not,  no  one  is — all  are  at  liberty  to  be  both  ignorant  and  dishonest, 
and  whenever  that  happens,  the  government,  being  in  the  hands  of  the 
people  and  swayed  by  a  majority  of  voices,  must  become  the  most  op- 
pressive and  odious  of  all  tyrannies,  and  hasten  to  a  violent  conclusion. 
The  whole  power  of  the  community  rests  with  the  majority,  and  no 
matter  how  well  defined  and  strictly  guarded,  the  limits  of  that  power 
may  be  by  the  written  terms  of  the  compact;  there  are  constant  and  strong 
temptations  to  exceed  those  limits,  and  the  grand  security  rests,  and 
must  always  rest,  after  all,  in  the  intelligence  of  the  majority  to  discover 
the  proper  boundaries  of  their  power,  and  their  sense  of  moral  oblig-a- 
tion  to  keep  within  them.  In  other  words,  the  question  of  the  exis- 
tence and  continuance  of  a  popular  government  is  always  a  question  of 
the  existence  and  continuance  of  popular  intelligence  and  popular  vir- 
tue; and  hence  the  necessity  and  the  obligation  of  every  member  of  such 
community  to  be  educated  and  to  be  virtuous. 


No.  55.J 


7 


But  popular  education  can  not  be  left  to  take  care  of  itselt'.  It  is  found 
absolutely  necessary  to  place  it  under  the  care  and  patronage  of  govern- 
ment. Such  is  the  settled  policy  of  our  own  State.  And  with  what  pur- 
pose is  it  that  the  government  undertakes  to  exert  its  political  and  i)arental 
authority  over  this  subject  ?  Not  certainly  for  the  personal  benefit  mere- 
ly of  the  individuals  who  partake  of  its  bounty;  but  it  is  for  the  sakft 
of  self  preservation;  it  is  because  these  indiviihials  together  constitute 
the  people,  and  because  the  people  rule,  an<l  because  without  education 
they  are  unfit  to  be  rulers.  The  objec  t  then  simply  is,  to  make  these 
persons  intelligent  and  virtuous  men  that  they  may  be  intelligent  and 
virtuous  citizens;  to  fit  them,  in  other  words,  for  the  faithful  and  com- 
petent discharge  of  their  political,  social  and  public  duties. 

It  is  not,  therefore,  enough  that  the  government  shall  provide,  in  part 
or  in  whole  for  the  support  of  education;  it  is  bound,  as  far  as  it  can, 
to  see  that  its  bounty  is  so  applied  as  to  produce  the  result  at  which  it 
aims.  It  is  quite  as  important  to  take  care  that  the  proper  course  of 
studies  be  prescribed  for  the  public  schools,  that  they  should  be  sub- 
jected to  the  proper  discipline  and  the  proper  police,  as  it  is  that  they 
should  be  cherished  and  sustained  at  all.  And  who  is  to  take  care  of 
this  important  matter,  if  the  Stale  does  not?  The  limit  of  its  authority 
over  the  subject  is  very  clear.  It  is  found  in  the  object  to  be  accom- 
plished. Keeping  that  object  steadily  in  view,  and  being  careful  to 
prescribe  nothing  inconsistent  with  it,  its  power  is  indisputable. 

At  present  with  us  this  important  power  of  prescribing  the  course  of 
studies  in  our  common  schools  is  lodged  in  hands  very  near  the  people. 
The  inhabitants  of  each  town  elect  six  officers  who  are  by  law  the  inspec- 
tors and  visiters  of  the  schools,  determining  the  qualifications  of  teachers 
and  directing  the  coui-se  of  instruction.  These  officers  of  course  repre- 
sent the  majority  of  qualified  voters;  that  is  to  say,  the  majority,  through 
their  elected  oilicers,  do,  or  may,  prescribe  the  course  of  studies. 

Now  your  committee  do  not  undertake  to  say  what  subjects  of  study 
should  be  prescribed.  That  w'Ould  be  foreign  to  our  present  duty. 
But  when  it  is  asked  that  a  particular  book  should  be  excluded  from  the 
course  by  law,  it  is  deemed  proper  to  shew,  at  least,  why  that  particular 
book  should  be  retained,  if  already  in  use,  or  brought  into  use  if  it  is 
not. 

The  great  reason  may  be  thus  stated.  Moral  instruction  is  quite  as  im- 
portant to  the  object  had  in  view  in  popular  education  as  intellectual  in- 
struction: it  is  indispensable  to  that  object.    But  to  make  such  instruction 


8 


[Assembly 


efFectivej  it  should  be  given  according  to  the  best  code  of  morals  known 
to  the  country  and  the  age;  and  that  code,  it  is  universally  conceded,  is 
contained  in  the  Bible.  Hence  the  Bible,  as  containing  that  code,  and 
for  the  sake  of  teaching  and  illustrating  that  code,  so  far  from  being 
arbitrarily  excluded  from  our  schools,  ought  to  be  in  common  use  in 
them. 

Keeping  all  the  while  in  view  the  object  of  popular  education;  the 
necessity  of  fitting  the  people,  by  moral  as  well  as  intellectual  discipline, 
for  self  government,  no  one  can  doubt  that  any  system  of  instruction 
which  overlooks  the  training  and  informing  of  the  moral  faculties  must 
be  vvTctchedly  and  fatally  defective.  Crime  and  intellectual  cultivation 
merely,  so  far  from  being  dissociated  in  history  and  statistics,  are  un- 
happily old  acquaintances  and  tried  friends.  To  neglect  the  moral 
powers  in  education,  is  to  educate  not  quite  half  the  man.  To  culti- 
vate the  intellect  only  is  to  unhinge  the  mind  and  destroy  the  essential 
balance  of  the  mental  powers;  it  is  to  light  up  a  recess  only  the  better 
to  shew  how  dark  it  is.  And  if  this  is  all  that  is  done  in  popular  edu- 
cation, then  nothing,  literally  nothing  is  done  towards  creating  and  esta- 
blishing public  virtue  and  forming  a  moral  people. 

The  moral  powers  then  must  be  informed  and  cultivated  in  our 
schools.  Children  must  be  instructed  in  moral  truth,  and  be  taught  to 
feel  habitually  the  force  of  moral  obligation;  and  to  do  this  according 
to  the  best  standard,  the  use  of  the  Bible  for  that  purpose  can  not  be 
dispensed  with.  So  it  is  believed  the  great  majority  of  our  people 
think,  and  wherever  they  think  so  in  the  towns  they  will  of  course,  by 
their  proper  officers,  order  and  direct  the  course  of  instruction  accord- 
ingly. 

Nor  is  it  discovered  what  good  right  the  petitioners,  or  any  minority 
of  persons,  have  to  object  to  the  use  of  this  book  for  the  purpose  indi- 
cated, as  an  approved  and  standard  work  for  instruction  in  morals,  be- 
cause their  opinion  of  its  merits  in  this  respect  may  differ  from  that  of 
the  majority.  If  the  minority  may  rule  in  regard  to  the  use  of  this 
book,  and  forbid  the  teaching  of  its  code,  they  may  do  the  same  thing 
in  regard  to  any  other  book  or  any  other  subject.  They  may  insist  that 
the  Christian  code  of  morals  shall  be  exchanged  for  that  of  the  Brahmins, 
or  turn  the  schools  over  to  Plato,  or  Aristotle,  or  Seneca,  or  Mahomet. 
They  may  prescribe  the  entire  course  of  studies,  instead  of  leaving  it  to 
be  done  by  those  to  whom  the  law  and  the  voice  of  the  majority  have 
confided  the  power. 


No.  55.] 


Nor  again,  is  it  discovered  that  the  practice  of  teacliing  morals  ac- 
cording to  the  christian  code,  and  using  the  Bible  for  that  purpose,  the 
majority  adopting  it,  is  any  infringement  whatever  on  the  religious  rights 
and  liberty  of  any  indivickial.  To  teach  christian  morals,  referring  to 
the  Bible  both  for  the  princii)les  and  for  their  illustrations,  is  a  widely 
different  thing  from  teaching  what  is  understood  to  be  the  christian  reli- 
gion. Religion  is  a  matter  between  a  man  anil  his  (iod.  It  has  refer- 
ence to  the  woi-ship  of  the  Supreme  Being,  and  the  mode  of  such  wor- 
ship, and  has  relation  to  a  future  state  of  existence,  and  the  retributions 
of  that  future  state;  and  it  is  concerned  with  creeds  and  articles  of  faith. 
Now,  religious  freedom  consists  in  a  man's  professing  and  enjoying 
what  religious  faith  he  pleases,  or  in  the  right  of  rejecting  all  religions; 
and  this  freedom  is  in  no  degree  invaded  when  the  morals  of  the  Bible 
are  taught  in*  public  schools. 

And  if  the  christian  religion,  as  a  system  of  faith,  whether  according 
to  one  creed  or  another  creed,  according  to  the  notions  of  one  sect  or 
of  another  sect,  is  not  taught  in  these  schools,  then  of  course  there  can 
be  no  pretence  that  this  religion  is,  in  this  way,  supported  by  the  State. 
Your  committee,  in  common,  they  believe,  with  nearly  the  whole  body 
of  their  fellow  citizens,  would  regard  it  as  the  deepest  of  calamities,  if 
religion — the  christian  religion — should  fall  under  the  protection  and 
patronage  of  political  power.  That  religion  is,  in  its  nature,  free;  it 
cannot  take  support  from  law  without  losing  its  lustre  and  its  purity; 
it  is  in  its  very  essence  and  spirit  to  demand  none  but  a  voluntary  wor- 
ship, and  allow  none  but  a  voluntary  support.  But  we  cannot  discern 
that  it  is  in  the  least  danger  of  injury  from  any  public  support  in  the 
schools  on  account  of  the  use  which  may  be  made  there  of  the  Bible  as 
a  text  or  a  class  book. 

Your  committee  have  now  given  the  reason  why  they  think  the 
Christian  code  of  morals  should  be  taught  in  our  schools  as  an  indispen- 
sable part  of  our  system  of  popular  instruction;  and  why  the  Bible 
should  be  employed  for  that  purpose.  There  are  other  reasons  why  it 
is  exceedingly  desirable  and  important  that  this  book  should  be  gene- 
rally used  in  our  schools  and  seminaries,  instead  of  bein(y  arbitrarily 
excluded,  as  these  petitioners  require.  But  we  do  not  deem  it  neces- 
sary to  detail  those  reasons.  If  the  Bible  should  be  studied  for  its  mo- 
ral principles,  it  should  be  studied  also  as  a  liistory  and  as  a  classic. 
As  an  authentic  narrative  of  events,  the  most  extraordinary  and  the 
most  interesting  any  where  recorded  of  our  race,  it  is  invaluable;  and 
there  is  nothing,  and  can  be  nothing,  to  supply  its  place.    And  such  is 

[Assem.  No.  55. J  2 


10 


[Assembly 


the  nature  and  antiquity  of  its  story,  that  no  education  in  this  depart- 
ment of  knowledge,  not  the  most  elementary,  can  be  had  without  some 
acquaintance  with  its  contents.  And  then  as  a  classic,  if  generally  em- 
ployed as  such,  it  would  certainly  supply  a  want  which  no  other  book 
can.  The  faithful  and  critical  study  of  the  English  language,  in  its 
purity,  by  the  youth  of  our  country,  is  immensely  important;  and  it  is 
confidently  believed,  that  no  where  can  there  be  found,  in  the  same 
compass,  half  as  many  specimens  of  beautiful  and  pure  Anglo-Saxon 
language,  as  in  the  Bible.  And  we  think  it  may  be  safely  said  that, 
since  the  publication  of  the  present  English  Bible,  as  translated  under 
the  orders  of  King  James,  no  writer  or  speaker  in  that  language,  can  be 
named,  who  has  acquired  any  just  celebrity  for  the  simplicity,  strength 
and  beauty  of  his  diction,  who  has  not  been  mainly  indebted  to  that 
book  for  his  excellence  in  that  particular.  Mr.  Fox  declared,  that  if  he 
was  ever  eloquent,  it  was  because  he  had  faithfully  studied  the  book  of 
Job. 

In  conclusion,  your  committee  would  only  say  that,  while  after  the 
most  attentive  examination,  they  have  not  been  able  to  find^  in  the  me- 
morial before  them,  one  fair  ground  of  complaint,  they  have  been, 
and  are,  deeply  impressed  with  the  many  and  weighty  considerations 
which  urge  on  all  who  value  the  interests  of  education,  the  interests  of 
morals,  and  the  interests  of  the  country  and  of  mankind,  the  indispen- 
sable necessity  of  preserving  to  the  people  the  right  to  employ  the  Bible 
as  a  means  of  invaluable  secular  instruction,  in  all  the  public  schools 
and  seminaries,  to  which  they  may  have  occasion  to  resort. 

Complaints  of  whatever  is  valuable  in  civil  society  will  always  be 
made.  Some  who  make  them  are  honest,  but  mistaken;  more  act  un- 
der the  merest  delusion;  a  few  are  speculative  and  reckless.  Men  of 
this  latter  class  are  apt  to  be  ingenious,  because  restless  and  dissatisfied. 
Their  work  is  to  destroy,  but  never  build.  The  moral  restraints  of 
society  sit  gallingly  upon  them.  They  take  the  name  of  liberty  on 
their  lips,  but  they  mean  licence  and  confusion.  With  them  nothing  is 
sacred,  nothing  is  venerable,  and  nothing  is  safe.  And  of  late,  their 
boldness  and  strength  seem  to  have  increased.  Their  spirit  is  seen 
every  where.  It  is  busy  with  political  institutions,  with  religious  obli- 
gations, with  social  forms  and  domestic  ties;  busy  to  weaken,  to  inva- 
lidate, and  to  undermine.  They  are  not  supposed  to  be  numerous  even 
yet;  but  they  have  followers,  who  are  followers  because  they  do  not 
know  who  they  are  who  lead  them,  or  whither  they  are  led.  This  state 
of  things  demands  undoubtedly  great  firmness  on  the  part  of  those  who 


No.  55.] 


11 


would  sustain  anil  preserve  what  is  valuable  in  our  social  and  political 
forms.  And  it  demands  as  much  moderation  as  firmness.  We  would 
always  hear;  we  would  always  consider;  and  we  would  always  reply 
only  by  argument  and  by  appeals  to  reason  and  to  truth.  It  is  in  this 
way  that  the  committee  have  intended  to  meet  the  complaints  of  these 
memorialists;  and  with  what  success  they  may  have  done  so,  must  now 
be  left  to  the  judgment  of  the  house  and  of  the  country. 

The  committee  recommend  to  the  house  the  adoption  of  the  follow- 
ing resolution: 

Resolved  J  That  the  prayer  of  the  memorialists  be  not  granted. 


